a6 murder

[P.L.A]

Good day one and all.
Who can ever say that the Establishment would ever admit that the wrong person was hanged, in this case? It was such a high profile case that it is surely not beyond the realms of possibility that the supposed DNA findings were made to suit a purpose, in a similar fashion to so many other disturbing aspects of the ultimate convinction.
Best regards to all.

Hi PC 49

No murder and subsequent execution in the last century can have been more high profile or controversial than that involving Derek Bentley. But more than forty years after the event, the powers that be quashed his conviction.

Rayner Goddard, the Lord Chief Justice at the time, decided the case was so important that he must be the judge at the initial trial. Sounds fine, but when it came to appeal the appeal court judges would have had to criticise Goddard, their boss, if the appeal were to succeed. Forty years on, all the unfairness about the trial was acknowledged, as well as lots of other things.

What is so different about the A6 murder? What is so unique about Hanratty that forty odd years after the event, the current Establishment feels the need to falsify DNA evidence, etc? Surely, all the senior Establishment players at the time of the case will be long gone by now, so who is being protected?

Peter

[P.L.A]

Good day one and all.
Also, if the testimony of VS was mainly based on the offender's accent, what chance did Hanratty have being the only person on the line-up with a london accent? Surely, he was at a major disadvantage anyway, being the only person with bright orange hair!
Best regards to all.

Hi PC49

Storie didn’t recognise the voice on accent alone. There are more elements to a person’s speech than this. Hanratty had a very low and quiet voice – a bit different to Alphon’s.

On top of this, there are also such things as pronunciation etc.

It was the whole thing that Valerie recognised.

I do agree about the disadvantage he was at with his hair. The arresting officers in Blackpool told him that it was this that gave him away when they saw him in the café.
Why didn’t his solicitor step in at the identity parade? They seem to have let him down here.

Peter.

[PC49]

Good afternoon Peter,
Regarding your point about the Craig/Bentley case, it was proved that Derek Bentley didn't fire the fatal shot, although he was at the scene of the crime. Similarly clear that Craig was the actual murderer. Derek Bentley was the scapegoat for the crime. Someone had to pay the ultimate price for the murder of the policeman, and the hapless Bentley, being over age, was the sacrificial lamb to sate the public's outrage at that time.
Obbviously there are similar parallels with the A6 Murder Case, but Hanratty totally denied all involvement, and there was no forensic evidence linking him to the scene at the time of the trial. The main conviction surely rested on the evidence of Valerie Storie, who had previously identified a totally innocent party at the first i.d. parade. She was obviously determined that someone should pay the ultimate price for the crime, and that person could quite easily have been Alphon. Whatever anyone else may say, I simply do not believe that everything that happened in that car, for so many hours, has been brought into the open. Nor has the potential involvement of others in the crime, namely France & Ewer.
The distinction between both cases is quite clear, and reputations and standings of a number of key players in the A6 Case could not be allowed to become tarnished.
Regards,
PC49.

[P.L.A]

Good day one and all.
Surely Alphon never had what could be described as a watertight alibi?
Best regards to all.

Hi PC49
For Alphon's alibi, see posting 2373 on page 238. It's a bit long, and only looks at one element of the alibi.

Peter

[Tony]

Hi PC49

Storie didn’t recognise the voice on accent alone. There are more elements to a person’s speech than this. Hanratty had a very low and quiet voice – a bit different to Alphon’s.

On top of this, there are also such things as pronunciation etc.

It was the whole thing that Valerie recognised.

I do agree about the disadvantage he was at with his hair. The arresting officers in Blackpool told him that it was this that gave him away when they saw him in the café.
Why didn’t his solicitor step in at the identity parade? They seem to have let him down here.

Peter.

Good afternoon Peter,

Well that’s putting it mildly if you ask me.

I know we are now 47 years on and in those far off days people were more used to doing what they were told without question; especially if the police were doing the telling. But if I had been in Hanratty’s situation I would have simply refused to go on that parade with my hair so coloured. I don’t know what he could have done about being asked to speak and I forget his place in the line up but if several ID members spoke in, let’s say a Scottish accent, and I was a Cockney I’d think: “This is a bit bloody odd. It might be I’m the only one on here with a Cockney accent. Didn’t I read in the papers somewhere that the gunman had a distinctive voice? I’d better change mine when it comes to my turn.”

No even good old Acott thought the parade was biased against Hanratty and made a feeble attempt to hide every member’s hair from Valerie but then let it go ahead without those precautions. I assume he was worried about what the judge’s take on it would be, but risked it anyway.

Just why Hanratty’s solicitors let it take place under these circumstances is a complete mystery as is why they didn’t ask the judge to get Acott to bring Michael Clark into court for a comparison with JH.

Tony.

[Tony]

Fool proof alibi.

Just momentarily getting away from our case and following on from the alibi evidence this might be interesting to somebody/nobody.

In October 1970 Barbara Mayo was found murdered at the side of the M1 in Derbyshire and the police at first were stuck for any leads.
Then maybe a couple of years later (I forget the exact timings now) they were told that Barbara had been seen getting into a blue Morris Minor Traveller (yes I know those Morris Minors get everywhere don’t they) so the case was fired up again and the owners of blue Morris Travellers were interviewed.

Now at this time I was employed by a building company in the Peak District and it had its own painting department. One of the painters, we will call him Jim as it’s as good a name as any when protecting your real identity, had been the owner of a blue Traveller in October 1970. Well the police turned up at his house and asked him where he had been on that particular day. Now ‘Jim’ never ever had a day off work, he couldn’t afford to so he says; “Oh I would definitely have been at work.”

Jim tells us the story of the cops visit to his house and thought that that was an end to the matter. Unfortunately for him the cops tuned up at his employers some weeks later and asked to look at his wage records and guess what. Yes that’s right Jim was absent on that day and what’s more he hadn’t been absent at all on any other days apart from the shut down holidays.

Next thing they are back at Jim’s house and the questions are a bit more heavy and serious. Jim and indeed his wife could offer no explanation and they sat there racking their brains but could come up with nothing. It was only when Jim’s young daughter came in to the room and said: “Didn’t Dad did take me to the dental hospital once, a long time ago, because you couldn’t drive Mum?” Bingo. Alibi.
The police checked at the dental hospital and reported back to Jim that he had signed the parents consent form for the dental work at about the time Barbara Mayo was being murdered. But I can tell you Jim was a worried man.

Incidentally Barbara Mayo’s killer is still at large and DNA has also proved he killed a girl at the side of the M6 in Cheshire in March 1970.
There are also strong rumours in this neck of the woods that Barbara Mayo’s killer might have been responsible for the murder of Wendy Sewell from Bakewell. Poor old Stephen Downing served 27 years for that one.

Tony.

[Graham]

Re: alibis.

1] Alphon's alibi satisfied both Acott and, later, the Home Secretary. In addition to Post 2373 by PLA I also posted some info regarding the Vienna and also Mrs Alphon.

2] Tony, your mate Jim's alibi - i.e., a signature on a form - was precisely what Hanratty didn't have regarding his claim to have stayed in Rhyl on the night of the 22nd. I can't remember how many times I've said that, had the Ingledene visitor's book carried either a Ryan or a Hanratty signature then that would have constituted an alibi. Hanratty's legal team, to my mind at least, were unable to come up with any other evidence for the Rhyl Alibi that they felt would stand up in court.

3] Stephen Downing is another cleared suspect in a murder in which the police are 'not seeking anyone else in connection with'. I.e., they still believe he is guilty. Same with Colin Stagg and, doubtless, others. I often wonder if, had Hanratty been acquitted, the police would have closed their files on the A6 Case....

4] Re: "Establishment Cover-Ups", can anyone state a murder case in which a cover-up has definitely, without any doubt, been established (excuse the pun)? I'm not trying it on here, I really would like to know.

Cheers,

Graham

[reg1965]

Re: alibis.

1] Alphon's alibi satisfied both Acott and, later, the Home Secretary. In addition to Post 2373 by PLA I also posted some info regarding the Vienna and also Mrs Alphon.

2] Tony, your mate Jim's alibi - i.e., a signature on a form - was precisely what Hanratty didn't have regarding his claim to have stayed in Rhyl on the night of the 22nd. I can't remember how many times I've said that, had the Ingledene visitor's book carried either a Ryan or a Hanratty signature then that would have constituted an alibi. Hanratty's legal team, to my mind at least, were unable to come up with any other evidence for the Rhyl Alibi that they felt would stand up in court.

3] Stephen Downing is another cleared suspect in a murder in which the police are 'not seeking anyone else in connection with'. I.e., they still believe he is guilty. Same with Colin Stagg and, doubtless, others. I often wonder if, had Hanratty been acquitted, the police would have closed their files on the A6 Case....

4] Re: "Establishment Cover-Ups", can anyone state a murder case in which a cover-up has definitely, without any doubt, been established (excuse the pun)? I'm not trying it on here, I really would like to know.

Cheers,

Graham

Hi Graham
Re your 4th point.
The Guildford Four. The alibi witness statement for Gerry Conlan and Paul Hill, a homeless man called Charlie Burke was deliberatly witheld from the defence. The old bill then caught the real bombers while covering up these facts and letting nearly a dozen totally innocent people spend many in prison. It cost Giuseppe Conlan his life. No copper has ever been charged with perverting the course of justice of perjury in this case.
Regards
Reg

[Tony]

Re: alibis.

1] Alphon's alibi satisfied both Acott and, later, the Home Secretary. In addition to Post 2373 by PLA I also posted some info regarding the Vienna and also Mrs Alphon.

2] Tony, your mate Jim's alibi - i.e., a signature on a form - was precisely what Hanratty didn't have regarding his claim to have stayed in Rhyl on the night of the 22nd. I can't remember how many times I've said that, had the Ingledene visitor's book carried either a Ryan or a Hanratty signature then that would have constituted an alibi. Hanratty's legal team, to my mind at least, were unable to come up with any other evidence for the Rhyl Alibi that they felt would stand up in court.

3] Stephen Downing is another cleared suspect in a murder in which the police are 'not seeking anyone else in connection with'. I.e., they still believe he is guilty. Same with Colin Stagg and, doubtless, others. I often wonder if, had Hanratty been acquitted, the police would have closed their files on the A6 Case....

4] Re: "Establishment Cover-Ups", can anyone state a murder case in which a cover-up has definitely, without any doubt, been established (excuse the pun)? I'm not trying it on here, I really would like to know.

Cheers,

Graham

Hello Graham,

Nice to here from you as always.

Alphon’s scratchy alibi had to be accepted by Acott but he announced publicly that he wanted Alphon with regards to the A6 murder but was forced to abandon him after Valerie failed to pick him out.

My mate Jim, sadly now deceased, signed a consent form at an NHS hospital where his daughter was treated. On the other hand if he for another reason altogether gone to a back street abortionist he may well have paid in cash and signed nothing.

You are only half right on the Colin Stagg case. On the court steps, when the judge had ordered the release of Colin Stagg because of underhand tactics by the police, the police said they were not looking for anyone else. Thus inferring that Colin Stagg was a murderer but he had got away with it.
There will shortly be the trial of another man for the murder of Rachel Nickel. He was already locked up for another similar murder at the time of Stagg’s trial,

I don’t exactly know what you mean by cover ups. But I can point to the case of Patrick Meehan who happened to be in the town of Ayr when a Mrs Ross was murdered. He was a bit of Hanratty type but had absolutely nothing to do with the murder. The police though were convinced and went back to Mrs Ross’s house and in her safe was a diary. They had a careful look at the diary and then went back to Meehan and asked for his overcoat that he had been wearing on the night of the murder. The following day two pages out of a diary were found in the overcoat pocket and on re-examining the diary they found two pages missing.
No capital punishment so no hanging just life. In the same prison as Meehan was the real murderer of Mrs Ross and everyone in the prison knew it including the governor. Meehan refused to work and spent seven years in solitary before the murderer’s accomplice died and his previously locked away letters gave details of the crime which led to a pardon for Meehan.

If you can get hold of Ludovic Kennedy’s book ‘A Presumption of Innocence’ it is a very good read.
Not far behind ‘Who killed Hanratty’.

Tony.

[reg1965]

I must say that Reg's theories on the DNA findings are impressive. He seems very knowledgeable on the subject, and certainly doesn't appear to be making things up. Who can ever say that the Establishment would ever admit that the wrong person was hanged, in this case? It was such a high profile case that it is surely not beyond the realms of possibility that the supposed DNA findings were made to suit a purpose, in a similar fashion to so many other disturbing aspects of the ultimate convinction.
Best regards to all.

Hi PC49
You must also give a heck of a lot of credit to JamesDean, Dupplin Muir and Jimarylin for digging up some brilliant articles and putting forward arguments that have led to some of us now seriously doubting the DNA evidence. Also credit should go to Victor and Caz for not backing down, asking questions, and making us do some serious research into this stuff.
Dupplin Muir has just posted links to 2 VERY interesting articles on the reliability of DNA analysis and profiling on the other thread. Everyone interested in the Hanratty case (and forensic evidence in the CJS) should try and read these.
Thanks anyway
Kind regards
Reg

[Graham]

I think there is something of a difference between what I meant by an "Establishment Cover-Up" and dubious police practices. What I actually meant was, has there ever been a murder case in which the Judiciary or the Home Office (for example), ministers of the Crown, etc., were ever shown to be deliberately corrupt or colluded to bring about an unfair verdict or to later support an unfair verdict at appeal?

Cheers,

Graham

[reg1965]

Leonard Millers Fantastic Tall Tales

A veritable cornucopia of porkies in print from his magnum opus Shadows of Deadman's Hill

Issue 1 (of an occasional series)

page 137

A fellow participant in the parade, Antony Luxemburg, described his reaction: "We stood in a line and Hanratty was brought in and he was told in our hearing that he could stand where he wanted to in the line and he had this extraordinary tension, the most tense human being I've ever seen in my life, it was absolutely electrifying."

(my italics)

Not so Lennie boy.

This was lifted, unreferenced, from Woffinden (1997. p115) and was actually what Mr Luxemburg had described of Hanratty when they were in the same van on the way to the second parade.

Not so interesting? This is just a mere taster of things to come...Look out for Issue 2 of this fascinating series soon.

[Victor]

Leonard Millers Fantastic Tall Tales

A veritable cornucopia of porkies in print from his magnum opus Shadows of Deadman's Hill

Issue 1 (of an occasional series)

page 137

(my italics)

Not so Lennie boy.

This was lifted, unreferenced, from Woffinden (1997. p115) and was actually what Mr Luxemburg had described of Hanratty when they were in the same van on the way to the second parade.

Not so interesting? This is just a mere taster of things to come...Look out for Issue 2 of this fascinating series soon.

HI Reg,

How do you know it's Miller getting it wrong? In other words could it be Woffinden that's wrong? Where's the actualy evidence that Mr Luxemburg was at a parade and which one it was?

KR,
Vic.

[Graham]

Reg,

Your attempt to rubbish someone whose opinion doesn't coincide with yours is pathetic and puerile. Anyone with three brain-cells to rub together can see that Miller was merely editing Woffinden's longer statement. Anyway, what Luxemburg was getting across was Hanratty's tension, and what does it matter to anyone's take on the case if Luxemburg sensed this on the line-up or in the van? He was simply making a point that Woffinden and Miller picked up on.

I'm beginning to understand one possible reason for Steve's no longer posting to this site, if this is representative of the standard of so-called debate.

Let's have no more of this nonsense, please.

Graham

[jimarilyn]

Reg,

Your attempt to rubbish someone whose opinion doesn't coincide with yours is pathetic and puerile. Anyone with three brain-cells to rub together can see that Miller was merely editing Woffinden's longer statement. Anyway, what Luxemburg was getting across was Hanratty's tension, and what does it matter to anyone's take on the case if Luxemburg sensed this on the line-up or in the van? He was simply making a point that Woffinden and Miller picked up on.

I'm beginning to understand one possible reason for Steve's no longer posting to this site, if this is representative of the standard of so-called debate.

Let's have no more of this nonsense, please.

Graham

Hi Graham,

I must say I think your comment on Reg's post is very unfair and uncalled for. It is also a little on the condescending side your last statement. Like everyone else on this thread he has every right to express his opinion about Lennie Miller and his distasteful work of fiction.

It is patently clear that Reg along with the likes of yourself, Tony, PLA, JamesDean, PC49, Dupplin Muir, Larue, Limehouse, Rigby (wish he'd post more), Caz, Puppykins and your very good friend Steve are all very intelligent people and very knowledgable about this intriguing and controversial case. I've read Miller's book and I definitely know where Reg is coming from.

As for Steve not posting (or even logging in) for almost six full weeks, which is very uncharacteristic of him I feel one of the following must be the situation........

1) He's lost complete interest in the case (hard to believe, given his huge contribution to this thread).
2) He's following the thread without logging in (unlikely).
3) He no longer has access to a computer.
4) He's unwell.

I sincerely hope it's not the 4th one.



regards,

James